Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context on what each signal analytically answers, but it says nothing about rate limits, caching, auth requirements (the apiKey parameter carries the OAuth-vs-/mcp distinction, not the description), or the shape of the returned envelope. Adequate, not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose in one sentence, then a clean bulleted breakdown of the signals. The list is long but each bullet carries distinct meaning the schema does not; the only mild waste is the redundant framing 'signal enum values and what each answers.'

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and ten distinct signal modes, the description should say more about what the common 'strategy decision envelope' actually contains. It explains the question each signal answers but not the return structure or whether the payload varies per signal, leaving a real gap for an agent that needs to consume the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely goes beyond it by explaining what each of the ten signal enum values means and answers. That mapping is the single most valuable piece of information for invoking this tool correctly, since the schema itself only lists the enum names bare.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a strategy decision envelope for one of 10 options-based trading signals,' and enumerates the ten signals so the agent knows the scope precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_zero_dte, get_term_structure, get_skew_term, or get_gex, which cover the same subject matter under different views.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The signal-by-signal question mapping implicitly guides which signal to request for a given analytical question (e.g. 'should you fade into expiry?' → expiry_positioning). However, it never says when to use this aggregated strategy tool versus the many sibling endpoints that expose the same underlying data, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.